User:Wenqing855/Gong Xian/Vickyyvyvy Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Wenqing855
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Wenqing855/Gong Xian
 * Gong Xian

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been updated.

The Lead includes a concise introductory sentence which identifies Gong Xian as a Chinese painter who was one of the Eight Masters of Nanjing. It also briefly describes the characteristics of Gong's paintings and his life. However, there is currently only the Lead but no any other section in the article. In other words, the Lead almost includes all the information in the article, even if it is still concise as a Lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added to the article involves Gong Xian's background, artistic career and notable works. It is definitely relevant to the topic but not literally up-to-date as Gong was an ancient painter. Now considering the whole article, it seems that there is no missing content but it might need more details about Gong's career and life. Also there is no content that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral. There is no heavily biased claim, overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The author has not added citations to the sandbox draft yet. Nevertheless, I checked the bibliography and it seems that the references are all reliable and relevant to the topic. They work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is mostly well-written, as most of the sentences are concise and clear. Only some titles of notable works are somewhat confusing. However, there are several sentences added by previous editors grammatically incorrect (i.e. "Primarily a landscape painter, mountains were the subject of most of Gong Xian's paintings.") and needed to be rewritten. The content added is well-organized that the article has been broken down into reasonable sections and become easier to read. Nevertheless, the paragraphs in Artistic Career still have to be reorganized after expanding.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There is no image or media added.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
It's not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article. There are now different sections with more information in the article which make it easier to read. Nevertheless, it still seems to be a draft which needs to be further improved. For example, the whole Artistic Career section can be reorganized and polished after new content is added so that the whole section can be presented in a clear timeline. In addition, the titles of notable works can be Chinese-English.